Case Details
-
Case Title: M/s Parkash Machinery Stores through Proprietor Gyan Prakash Goyal v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Dept. of State Tax, Lucknow & Another
-
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
-
Petition No.: Writ Tax No. 118 of 2025
-
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:13172-DB
-
Judgment Date: 04.03.2025
-
Coram: Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J. and Hon’ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.
-
Category of Dispute: Limitation under Section 73 – Time-barred proceedings (Assessment/ITC demand)
- Relevant Provisions: Section 73(9) & 73(10), Section 44(1) of U.P. GST Act, 2017
Facts (Para 1–3)
The petitioner challenged proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 relating to FY 2017–18. A show cause notice was issued on 02.03.2023 and a final order passed on 06.12.2023. The petitioner argued that such proceedings were time-barred, as already settled by a coordinate bench in M/s A.V. Pharma v. State of U.P. decided on 12.11.2024. In that case, the Court had quashed proceedings beyond the statutory three-year period prescribed under Section 73(10), reckoned from the extended due date of filing annual return i.e., 05.02.2020.
Questions before Court
Whether proceedings under Section 73 for FY 2017–18, initiated in March 2023 and culminating in December 2023, could be sustained in view of the statutory limitation and the notification dated 24.04.2023 extending timelines retrospectively from 31.03.2023?
Court’s Observations (Para 2–3)
The Bench noted that in M/s A.V. Pharma, the issue of limitation under Section 73(10) was conclusively settled. The due date for filing annual return was extended to 05.02.2020, hence the three-year limitation expired on 05.02.2023. Although a notification dated 24.04.2023 purported to extend the period till 31.12.2023, it had retrospective effect only from 31.03.2023. Thus, where limitation had already expired before 31.03.2023, the notification could not revive such proceedings. Orders passed thereafter were without jurisdiction.
Judgment (Para 3–4)
The Court held that the proceedings culminating in the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 were barred by limitation and beyond jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order and proceedings were quashed, and consequential reliefs were directed to follow as per law.
Case Law Referred
| Case | Court | Issue | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| M/s A.V. Pharma v. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 264 of 2024, decided 12.11.2024) | Allahabad HC, Lucknow Bench | Limitation under Section 73 for FY 2017–18 | Held orders passed after 05.02.2023 time-barred; quashed DRC orders and de-froze bank accounts |
Between Fine Lines
For businesses, this judgment underscores that assessment or demand orders for FY 2017–18 under Section 73 could not be sustained if issued after 05.02.2023, despite later extension notifications. Any action taken by tax authorities beyond this limitation is liable to be struck down as without jurisdiction.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
